Observations of an ex pat: America without NATO

Can he do it? The latest NATO summit ended with the alliance still intact, but Donald Trump has opened the door to an American exit with the chilling words: “It is presently unnecessary” to withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Which means that it is still on the table.

Trump is angry that his alliance partners are slow in reaching the defence spending target of two percent of GDP by 2025. In fact he wants them to double the target to four percent. After all, America is spending 4.8 percent according to Trump (3.5 percent according to government accountants).

If they don’t? Well, that’s when he might start heading for the door he has just left ajar.  Which brings us back to the question: Can he do it? As well as the questions of the impact on Europe, America and the wider world.

In theory it would seem that Trump would need the support of Congress to withdraw from the Western Alliance. But political practice points in the opposite direction.

Under the terms of the American constitution all treaties and alliances need the approval of two-thirds of the members of the Senate. Once ratified they become part of “the supreme law of the land”. Exactly what this means, however, is open to interpretation. Founding father Thomas Jefferson interpreted it as meaning that revoking a treaty would also require approval from two-thirds of the senate.

But more recent practice indicates otherwise. In 2002 George W. Bush decided to unilaterally withdraw from the US-Russian Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The Leader of the Senate said nothing. Several democratic senators decided to sue in the courts to force a vote. It was rejected by the Washington DC federal judge partly because the Senate had already failed to adequately assert its powers and because the judge ruled: “Issues concerning treaties are largely political questions best left to the political branches of government, not the courts, for resolution.”

This treaty business cuts both ways. There are several treaties effectively in force without Senate approval. In each case, the White House enforced the treaty through executive decree because it feared rejection by the Senate. These include Salt Two, the Law of the Sea Convention, Convention to Eliminate all forms of Discrimination Against Women, The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and many others.

However, NATO is a—if not THE—cornerstone of American foreign policy. It is especially popular with Republican congressmen. So Donald Trump may find that the Senate re-discovers the interpretation of Thomas Jefferson along with its teeth if he decides to withdraw from Nato.

But as commander-in-chief he could effectively withdraw without actually withdrawing. He could refuse to supply weapons or spare parts to NATO allies. He could refuse to participate in NATO exercises and withdraw American forces from Europe. He could do all of the above without actually withdrawing from NATO.

But if he did so he would do irreparable harm not only to the defence of Europe but also to America’s position as a world power. The United States has 290 bases across Europe.  The Europeans provide the land and, in most cases, a big chunk of the operational costs.  The deal is simple: In exchange for allowing the US to operate on their sovereign soil the United States offers European protection.

The use of European sovereign soil also allows the United States to project its political and military power much further and faster than if it operated from bases thousands of miles of away on the American eastern seaboard. The American forces not only operate in Europe. Their bases are also staging posts for operations in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

President Trump tends to view diplomatic relations in transactional dollars and cents terms. This is partly because of his business background and partly because that is an easy to understand formula for his supporters. But the world is much more complicated than that.

* Tom Arms is a Wandsworth Lib Dem and produces and presents the podcast www.lookaheadnews.com

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in News.


  • Steve Trevethan 13th Jul '18 - 10:13am

    The NATO conflicts in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya have done so much more harm to Europe than the Russians and the Chinese put together. They have resulted in death, destruction, increased opium production, slave markets, destabilising numbers of wretched refugees, the waste of trillions of dollars and a rise in extreme right wing attitudes, behaviours and political parties and gangs.
    Perhaps we would be better off with no NATO or an ETO (European Treaty Organisation)?
    It might be relevant to look at the GDPs and arms expendituresfor the USA, Russia and the combined European countries.

  • John Marriott 13th Jul '18 - 5:21pm

    Simon Jenkins has an interesting article on NATO in today’s Guardian. In short, he thinks it’s days are numbered. I’m not so sure; but I can see where he’s coming from.

    NATO, as he points out, was a legitimate response to Soviet potential aggression, fuelled no doubt by Roosevelt’s agreeing to Stalin’s area of influence, particularly in Eastern Europe. Had the states in this area not been largely sucked into NATO, perhaps Russia might have felt less threatened.

    Trump is right (for once) that not all NATO member states pay their agreed share. If all are not prepared in the near future to increase their spending to at least 2% of GDP then we should really consider some form of retrenchment. Outright abolition at this stage would be too dangerous. However, if Trump and Putin emerge as bosom buddies by the beginning of next week we may have to ask the existential question again.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJoseph Bourke 23rd Feb - 1:44pm
    Taxes have both macroeconomic effects and microeconomic effects. So called deadweight losses are primarily (but not exclusively) a microeconomic feature. In the UK we have...
  • User Avatarexpats 23rd Feb - 1:38pm
    ........................Heidi Allen MP, one of the three ex-Tory Independents, who reportedly attacked George Osborne in her Maiden speech in 2015 over his tax cuts to...
  • User AvatarLorenzo Cherin 23rd Feb - 1:05pm
    Katharine you bring a constructive and of course welcome contribution to our debate about these mps. I feel there is much to agree with in...
  • User AvatarJoseph Bourke 23rd Feb - 12:56pm
    Peter Martin, House prices in the UK have increased by more than double that in comparable European Counties since 1970. Rents have increased by three...
  • User AvatarMichael 1 23rd Feb - 12:52pm
    @Gordon On VAT All taxes increase the cost of doing business and therefore the cost of living. Income tax increases the cost of living. And...
  • User AvatarRichard Underhill 23rd Feb - 12:38pm
    Sean Hagan 23rd Feb '19 - 10:43am: Peter Kyle MP was interviewed at length on BBC tv Politics Live on 22/2/2019. His proposed amendment falls...